mailing list archives
Re: Fair Use Policy
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:15:45 -0700
I just wish that someone...Google or ANYONE else would do something like Google Fiber in the technological wasteland
where I live instead of focusing only on hotbeds of high-speed internet and well-connected customers like Kansas City,
parts of North Dakota, Minnesota, etc.
Here in my bandwidth ghetto, TPC can't do better than 1.5Mbps/384kbps and Cable has different limitations (ridiculous
fees for static addresses, for example), extremely variable performance (most days, I do pretty well getting
50-70Mbps/10-30Mbps on a line where I pay for 30/10, but often enough to be annoying, I get 7Mbps/3Mbps for 8-10 hours
at a time...Just long enough to go through the trouble report process but not long enough to still be a problem when
the tech shows up to address the issue.), etc.
I'd love to ditch the DSL line and relegate the Cable circuit to backup status (and move to a lower pricing tier on it)
with my primary on FTTH.
 I _HAVE_ business class cable service, but I find the idea of $5+/month for an address that costs them less than
Where is this barren wasteland of bandwidth you may ask? It's in San Jose, California. Capitol of Silicon Valley. If I
stand on the top of my roof, I can see 55 South Market Street on a clear day. (but I have to stand in just the right
spot and look through just the right piece of the 280x680x101 interchange).
If anyone wants to do a fiber build in my neighborhood ala Google, I will happily go door to door soliciting my
neighbors on their behalf.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 18:46 , Benjamin Krueger <benjamin () seattlefenix net> wrote:
A unique position? Unlike those poor residential ISPs who only have literally millions of subscribers to use as
leverage in peering negotiations. Perhaps more accurately, rather than saying "Google can afford to start almost any
project they want" we should say "Google doesn't suffer the temptation of wringing every last penny out of their
aging infrastructure to ensure maximum profits from minimal investments".
I don't want to turn this into a long-drawn debate, so I'll simply say that I take Google at their word when they say
this is profitable from Day 1 and I surely take their product offering at its word. I'm not sure who proposed we
require anything, but I suppose we can let the market decide what ISPs are "required" to do. I can say that I don't
know anyone who wouldn't drop any existing residential service for what Google is selling. Perhaps they will succumb
to some unforeseen boogeyman as you allude to, but to be honest that sounds a whole lot like the wishful thinking of
an industry that has been deftly out-manueverd at its own game and now finds itself dramatically behind the curve.
Frankly, if I were in the ISP business I would be shitting my pants.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 8/22/12, Benjamin Krueger <benjamin () seattlefenix net> wrote:
Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.
Google can afford to start almost any project they want, and they are
in a unique position to negotiate peering and access to a ton of
bandwidth, with their Youtube, Google Search et al. As to whether it
will be profitable, well, obviously, that is their claim. It's yet to
I gotta reject the idea that broadband providers should be required to
follow in Google's footsteps though.
For now, Google fiber is another risky experiment, that could have a
great payout if successful, or could be shuttered within a year or so,
or fees/rate incs tacked on, when they figure out just what a mess
they have gotten into.